Member Info for HeidHoncho

�the SS is a jackup drilling rig� Since when ? It has always been a semi sub for all the timeI have known it.

I'm struggling to see why some blinkered posters believe this to be a great thing. Statement - GBP4.47m has been deferred with final payments due either by the end of August 2018 or Field Development Plan Approval for the Company's SNS developments, whichever occurs first. Intimation - Given no revenue stream prior to either the end of August, or FDP approval, this means that a placing will occur prior to then to raise the funds to pay off the debt. I appreciate that it further states "The remaining cash element of the settlement will be paid from existing facilities", but if they utilise existing facilities to pay off this debt then it just means that these existing facilities will be depleted when it comes to progressing with the development, and means that a larger figure will require to be raised when it comes to progressing the development had these existing facilities not have been utilised to pay off the debt (i.e. robbing Peter to pay off Paul) Statement - Interest will accrue at LIBOR + 9% Intimation - Additional debt to be paid, in excess of 10% of the outstanding debt. (pro rata) Statement - GBP1.87m of the above total due has been converted into new ordinary shares in IOG at a price of 19p as detailed below Intimation - A guaranteed price of 19 pence per share has been given to those converting debt into equity, irrelevant of what happens to the share price prior to the sale of their shares. Statement - If the shares are sold for less than GBP1.85m, IOG will make up the shortfall through the issue of new shares or with cash. Intimation - No matter what downward movement there may be on the SP, be that through further dilution, or the sentiment driving the share price down, the original debt holder who converted into equity is guaranteed to receive the entire outstanding sum, through IOG continuing to issue additional equity should the SP be below 19p when the debt holder sell the shares. i.e. NO risk to the debt holder, ALL risk lies with IOG and their shareholders. So clearly from the above it is logical for me to believe that this RNS is far from the brilliant handling of the debt that some are attempting to portray here. IMHO, obviously.

Mirabeau, I hate to burst your bubble, but your statement re “Verbier could well be the largest discovery in the NS in 2017 and we have 18%” is so far off the mark it is laughable. Take for instance Hurricane’s announced discovery earlier this year at Halifax. That discovery is being promoted as being in the billions of barrels, especially so if it is proven (at the moment, not proven but logically anticipated) to be connected to their Lancaster Field, and Hurricane own the full 100% of their own asset. Perhaps you will wish to postulate that it is West of the Shetland Isles, and not truly in the “NS” as you may wish to perceive it, but if that is to be your contrary argument then that would be woefully weak. If you are going to attempt a ramp you should at least research in greater detail, and have a documentable source to readily defend your statement. IMHO

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41414413

That's strange. The post on the BB shows it to have been posted at 16:20, yet both on this site and on investigate.co.uk, show that the RNS was published at 16:34, a full 14 minutes after the post was made on this board. Do you receive advance notifications of RNS's applegarth, if so that would potentially give you the jump on the herd.

"Well A6 was drilled to a total depth of 4,528 meters, completed and then perforated within a 54-meter interval from a depth of 4,450 meters. The early indications are that the perforation will need to be re-performed to enable a flow test to be conducted as much of the targeted area for the original perforation remains unperforated" The excuse given, much as have previous excuses given have been, astonishingly lacking in any credibility. Anyone in the oilfield will tell you, to so dramatically be so far out on your perforating depth "much of the targeted area for the original perforation remains unperforated" is not purely bad luck, it smacks of gross negligence. The utilisation of the word "much" indicates that the area perforated was not merely being a little bit out, it states that they were WAY out. Does anyone know if they were tubing conveyed, or wireline conveyed, perforating guns that were deployed ? To be so way out on the perforated area should have been readily identifiable prior to demobilising the equipment from A6 onto A5, as the lack of/reduced instantaneous pressure jump immediately after firing the guns, and ultimately the lower THP witnessed prior to buttoning up A6, should have made it obvious that something was amiss, and required rectification prior to demobbing the equipment from A6.

Strange sudden price drop. Is there to be a large delayed sell trade, or are the MM's just trying to scare out sellers to harvest shares for a buy order on their book ?

TTF ................... Are you Aberdeen based ? If so, then respond in a manner conducive with so, if not, then don't respond. I will only discuss face to face, and even then only having looked into your eyes.

Being awarded circa $173 million dollars is one thing, but being able to collect it all is quite another. The guy in question did not get as rich as he is by being stupid/foolish, so I would anticipate major problems in collecting the full sum due by him. The assets currently frozen is but a relatively small proportion of the overall sum, and even then that figure equates to current market rates, which will not be achievable if sold "fire sale" stylee (accountants will be informed to monetise the assets at the earliest, not optimum, opportunity). What also needs to be borne in mind is that the assets are merely frozen, title of the assets has not been handed over to ARMS (or there designated parties). So, any belief that ARMS will soon see an influx of $173 million needs to be tempered accordingly, as there is a credible risk that a large proportion of this sum may never be recovered. But as always, this is IMHO, and as always DYOR.

In previous posts of mine on Tuesday night if I have interpreted the investment proposal RNS correctly then not only do I believe that Mr Bell will be taking the company private, and in doing so de-list it, but he may well be obliged to do so. My understanding of company law/regulations with regards to listed companies is very weak, and I would rather someone more aware of the regulations passed comment on it, but my limited knowledge of the same made me think that when holding in excess of 30% of a companies shareholding you were obliged to make an offer (to the board) to takeover the company, and if you held in excess of 70% you may be obliged to propose the purchase the outstanding shares that you did not already hold. But as I said, my knowledge of the regulations is very sketchy in the extreme, and as such I am likely to be well wide of the mark there. I would be pleased if someone well versed in the regulations would like to confirm the exact position ? My interpretation of the RNS would leave me believing that the shareholdings, were the offer to be accepted, would be as follows. If Mr Bell currently holds no shares in the company (though he may, and if he does then that will only magnify his position) then upon acceptance of this package Mr Bell would hold 6.1 billion shares (initially, with the potential to hold more should more of the debt facility be drawn down), and existing/new shareholders would hold 2.8 billion shares (the current circa 1.8 billion, plus up to an additional 1 billion should the maximum £500,000 open offering be taken up). That would still leave Mr Bell with greater than 68% of the then new (post initial subscription) shareholding. The above percentage holdings are based on the following. The reason that I perceive his shareholding would be in excess of 68% is that £1.55 million pounds worth of shares, and the potential (may be converted at "any time on Mr. Bell's request") to convert the drawdown of £1.5 million of the debt facility, at "..... a price of 0.05 pence per ordinary share...." would equate to Mr Bell holding 6.1 billion shares (on this initial investment alone, and the initial drawdown of the debt facility), and there is the further potential for him to convert an additional 3 billion shares at a later date (if there is the drawdown of the maximum debt facility). The above is IMHO, and as always I suggest that all DYOR.

What a massive potential dilution though. Read the RNS in its entirety, At a current SP of 0.30, and the potential to pick up shares in the "open offer" (no indicated preferential treatment between "new" or "existing" shareholders), I would be willing to take the risk of obtaining shares in that manner (at 0.05 pence per share, rather than the current 0.3 pence per share). After all, there is nothing currently in the way of a downside if your were unsuccessful in your application. IMHO, and as always I strongly suggest you DYOR, especially so with regards to reading, and understanding, the investment offer RNS.

There is also a proposal for £500,000 of shares at 0.05 pence to be offered to new or existing shareholders in an open offer. That would indicate that you do not require to be an existing shareholder.

0.05 pence (i.e. 20 shares = 1pence). See my posts of last night. No one seems to have been able to point out my misinterpretation of the RNS, if indeed I had made one. Initially I thought I had made a glaring error, but given that no one has pointed out where I may have made it, even I am now begining to think I might have been right. Gulp !!! As always IMHO, and I strongly suggest that everyone DYOR.

stephen, that is how I also interpreted the RNS. Though my cynical side identified that the existing AND new shareholders would only be able o subscribe a maximum of £500,000 in this subscription, and be able to purchase a grand total of 1 billion shares at 0.05 pence (£0.0005). If Mr Bell currently holds no shares in the company (though he may, and if he does then that will only magnify his position) then upon acceptance of this package Mr Bell would hold 6.1 billion shares (initially, with the potential to hold more should more of the debt facility be drawn down), and existing/new shareholders would hold 2.8 billion shares (the current circa 1.8 billion, plus up to an additional 1 billion should the maximum £500,000 open offering be taken up). That would still leave Mr Bell with greater than 68% of the then new (post initial subscription) shareholding. As I have said previously, I must be making a glaring error with my interpretation of the RNS. As always IMHO, and I strongly suggest that everyone DYOR. GLA

stephen, I concur (though I am probably wrong again .... lol) with your intimation regarding a takeover, but that was part 2 of my observation, which I didn't enter into once it was intimated to me that I was wrong in my interpretation in part 1 of my observation. Even allowing only for Mr Bell's initial £1.55 million investment, and an immediate drawdown of £1.5 million from the debt facility that he is providing, if I was correct in my interpretation that he would upon that investment alone "at a price of 0.05 pence per ordinary share in the capital of the Company ("Ordinary Shares") (the "Subscription") (or such amount that is equivalent to 0.05 pence per Ordinary Share following the share consolidation and share split as detailed below) (the "Subscription Price");", would then hold (I don't know of any existing shareholding that he may already have, so this percentage may be even greater still) in excess of 77% of the shares in the company. The reason that I perceive his shareholding would be in excess of 60% is that £1.55 million pounds worth of shares, and the potential (may be converted at "any time on Mr. Bell's request") to convert the drawdown of £1.5 million of the debt facility, at "..... a price of 0.05 pence per ordinary share...." would equate to Mr Bell holding 6.1 billion shares (on this initial investment alone, and the initial drawdown of the debt facility), as there is the further potential for him to convert an additional 3 billion shares at a later date (if there is the drawdown of the maximum debt facility). Being as there are currently circa 1.8 billion shares in issue, and that the likelihood is that upon acceptance of proposed refinancing offer Mr Bell would hold 6.1 billion shares, which would then equate to circa 77% of the shares in issue. Surely at that shareholding percentage he would be obliged to launch a takeover, and quite likely delist and take it private. There is indication that there will be a share consolidation and share split (on terms to be agreed at a later date), but this will occur after the initial investment, and drawdown on the debt facility (the first £1.5 million of the £3 million, debt facility will be drawn down immediately), has been made, and shares consequently issued. I clearly must be wildly misinterpreting the RNS, as it would appear that Mr Bell would end up with the vast majority of the company, if this re-financing proposal is accepted. All I ask is that (in layman's terms hopefully .... lol), for my own edification, that someone details where I am making such basic errors in my initial interpretation. As always, the above is IMHO, and I strongly suggest that everyone DYR. GLA

I posted a question relating to an earlier observation made by myself earlier this evening, and as yet I have not seen anyone respond to it. I ask as it would appear (by the initial responses that I received to my original post) that I may have made an error, and misinterpreted the latest RNS, and it would benefit me (and other BB posters to prevent them having to read another incorrect observation of mine ...... lol) if I could receive input as to where I had made an error in interpreting the RNS. It appeared to me when reading the RNS that there was a potential massive dilution sitting in the wings to the existing shareholding, and although it had been indicated to me that I had misinterpreted the RNS no one was able to point out to me where I had made the error. And if I am to improve myself going forward, and educate myself further, then this input would be helpful. The basis of my apparent misinterpretation that I had made whilst reading the RNS (copied from a previous post) is detailed below. I had read the proposal as the following. Mr Bell was going to initially invest £1.55 million. At the same time there would be an open offering to new/existing shareholders up to a maximum of £0.5 million A debt facility of up to £3 million (drawn down at a maximum of £1 million per annum, for a duration of 3 years) to be provided by Mr Bell, and any sums drawn against this facility to be convertible by Mr Bell at a time of his choosing, at the initial subscription price. The above totalling the £5.5 million pounds (maximum) detailed in the proposal. Additionally, as I had interpreted from the proposal, that the "subscription" share price was to be 0.05 pence (£0.0005, i.e. 20 shares for 1 pence). Had I not misinterpreted the proposal, then that would have equated to the potential issuance over the 3 year term of an additional 11 billion (£5,500,000 of shares converted at a rate of 0.05 pence) shares. And given that the current volume of shares in issue being only circa 1.8 billion, then that would equate to a greater than 5 times current shareholding dilution. So, hopefully you will see from the above misinterpretation of mine, why it caused me reason to raise the question in the first place. I really must learn to read such proposals as these properly. Oh well, back to school for me, and yet again, my apologies for my misinterpretation of the said proposal. GLA If anyone can give me a definitive steer as to where my interpretation (detailed above) of the RNS went wrong then I would appreciate it.

pumpky, to aid my education, would you please be so kind as to indicate to me where I fell down in my interpretation of the proposal. Many thanks.

rick, my apologies then for misinterpreting it incorrectly. I had read the proposal as the following. Mr Bell was going to initially invest £1.55 million. At the same time there would be an open offering to new/existing shareholders up to a maximum of £0.5 million A debt facility of up to £3 million (drawn down at a maximum of £1 million per annum, for a duration of 3 years) to be provided by Mr Bell, and any sums drawn against this facility to be convertible by Mr Bell at a time of his choosing, at the initial subscription price. The above totalling the £5.5 million pounds (maximum) detailed in the proposal. Additionally, as I had interpreted from the proposal, that the "subscription" share price was to be 0.05 pence (£0.0005, i.e. 20 shares for 1 pence). Had I not misinterpreted the proposal, then that would have equated to the potential issuance over the 3 year term of an additional 11 billion (£5,500,000 of shares converted at a rate of 0.05 pence) shares. And given that the current volume of shares in issue being only circa 1.8 billion, then that would equate to a greater than 5 times current shareholding dilution. So, hopefully you will see from the above misinterpretation of mine, why it caused me reason to raise the question in the first place. I really must learn to read such proposals as these properly. Oh well, back to school for me, and yet again, my apologies for my misinterpretation of the said proposal. GLA

Now it might just be my interpretation, and I am sure that others may have read things differently, but I have a question regarding the "Proposed Financing" RNS. Should the financing go through (which the company requires if it is to survive) as proposed, how many additional shares will be issued, and how might that potential quantity dilute, or not, the current market cap (and consequently the existing SP) ? But then again, I have quite likely misinterpreted the RNS, and if that is the case, then I apologise for my foolishness. All of the above is IMHO, and as always I promote that everyone DYOR. p.s. If my calculations are correct, then you will require your calculator to have a large number of digits.

It is a 10 for 1 share consolidation.